Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
Yeah no chance she didn't come across new information or other factors that would make her decide to take the case later on. Being as she has gotten more exonerations than any other lawyer in the country, isn't it likely she has a belief she can achieve that goal when taking on a case? What is the benefit of taking on a high profile case she knows she can't win? What she does is significantly different then just being a traditional criminal defense attorney.
I dont think you understand, I never once said she didnt believe he was innocent. I said she without a doubt knew of SAs case prior to the doc and did not take it. So unless, like you say, she somehow got handed a new piece of evidence out of thin air(aka if she chose to do more research into the case after the doc, you need to ask yourself why?), the publicity of the case was a large factor in her taking the case.
Use occams razor.
Its very simple. There are a lot of false imprisonment cases that come across her desk, she takes the ones that serve her best. Right now that is SA. What she does is noble, but it is not without consideration of personal gain(whether directly monetary or through exposure). Need more proof, look at her website, she ranks all her cases by monetary value when it comes to "results".
Her tweets back up this by being the most click baity things ever.
You realize people do good deeds publicly all the time? A good deed doesnt have to be purely selfless.
Heres what happened:
1. She saw the public opinion of the doc.
2. She did more research on a case she previously chose not to accept
3. she found some stuff she thinks will change the courts decisions
4. she takes the case
Her number 2 step happens purely because of number 1.
Remember, I think avery is innocent. I also think smacc is the equivalent of a high functioning 7 year old girl who just learned the copy and paste command. I am embarrassed to be on the same side of the argument as him(and lost), but then again, both sides have embarrassing people on them so its a lose-lose.